Wikipedia talk:Vital articles

General Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4 Level 5

Level 5 Subpages

People History and geography Society STEM

Introduction

FA FA GA GA A – Total December 1, 2007 83 45 90 139 25 690 1022 June 1, 2008 88 46 79 140 25 670 999 December 1, 2008 88 50 72 145 24 682 1014 FA A GA B C – Total December 1, 2009 82 7 49 586 146 129 999 January 1, 2011 78 8 60 472 255 113 986 January 1, 2012 76 1 76 454 275 109 991 June 29, 2013 88 3 88 450 289 82 1000 October 13, 2013 90 4 92 446 284 83 999 January 13, 2015 90 2 96 417 333 60 998 December 23, 2016 94 2 107 425 355 17 1000 December 10, 2017 91 3 115 392 376 17 994 January 22, 2019 92 4 122 389 380 12 999

The purpose of this discussion page is to select 1000 topics for which Wikipedia should have high-quality articles. All Wikipedia editors are welcome to participate. Individual topics are proposed for addition or removal, followed by discussion and !voting. Since the list is currently full, it is recommended that a nomination of a new topic be accompanied by a proposal to remove a lower-priority topic already on the list.

All proposals must remain open for !voting for a minimum of 15 days, after which:

1. After 15 days it may be closed as PASSED if there are (a) 5 or more supports, AND (b) at least two-thirds are in support.
2. After 30 days it may be closed as FAILED if there are (a) 3 or more opposes, AND (b) it failed to earn two-thirds support.
3. After 30 days it may be closed as NO CONSENSUS if the proposal hasn't received any !votes for +30 days, regardless of tally.
4. After 60 days it may be closed as NO CONSENSUS if the proposal has (a) less than 5 supports, AND (b) less than two-thirds support.

Nominations should be left open beyond the minimum if they have a reasonable chance of passing. An informed discussion with more editor participation produces an improved and more stable final list, so be patient with the process.

• 15 days ago: 00:50, 29 July 2024 (UTC) ()
• 30 days ago: 00:50, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
• 60 days ago: 00:50, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

Swap: remove Card game and Board game, add Tabletop game

Card game and Board game are covered by Tabletop game. Tabletop game cover also other games such like cue sports, titled games etc. In my opinion better option is have Tabletop game instead card game and board game because of we have mre cue sports players than poker players at the level 5. Beyond that card game historically is fewer significant than sports such like box etc.

Support

1. As nom Dawid2009 (talk) 21:43, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
2. Support removal --Thi (talk) 22:42, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
3. Support. wumbolo ^^^ 06:17, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose  Carlwev  15:00, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
2. Oppose per Carlwev power~enwiki (π, ν) 15:48, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
3. Oppose The fact that card games and board games can be played on a table is irrelevant to the significance of these concepts. It's like saying we should list quadruped instead of cattle, dog and horse. Cobblet (talk) 12:00, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
4. Oppose (Ios2019 (talk) 14:17, 23 January 2019 (UTC)).

Discuss

Even though the article technically covers the others.... I just think table top game is not term used very much. The article is tiny list like, few page views and few other interwiki languages, I just think not many people use the term or would look it up to read or improve the article, even though it is a "parent topic" I think it would be unwise in this case. There was an attempt to have Precipitation instead of rain and snow which failed for similar reasons. One could argue to remove Association Football and add Ball game to "cover" cricket, golf and tennis, but I think this would be unwise and unpopular, probably? other sports are covered by sport, other games are covered by game.  Carlwev  15:00, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Remove card game

Reasons above. Card game historically is less vital than boxing and people do not want to add combat sport to the level 3.

Support

1. Support nom. Dawid2009 (talk) 17:57, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
2. Support --Thi (talk) 19:02, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

remove São Paulo

São Paulo is less famous than Rio de Janerio despite fact that Rio de Janerio is not capital of Brazil. We have bad balance between cities and countries so São Paulo is good candidate to remove it.

support

1. As nom Dawid2009 (talk) 21:43, 12 November 2018 ‎(UTC)
2. Support --Thi (talk) 22:47, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

oppose

1. Strong oppose It's the largest metropolitan area in the Americas. The list of cities would make no sense without it. Cobblet (talk) 12:08, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
2. Oppose Vitality is not the same as fame or being a current capital. --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 21:06, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
3. Oppose (Ios2019 (talk) 06:58, 24 January 2019 (UTC)).
4. Oppose Willing to be convinced if a replacement that is better, but Google scholar hits for the two cities are about the same. I'd also note that current trajectories will put São Paulo at twice the size of Rio in the next few decades. PWC has predicted the São Paulo will be the fifth wealthiest city in the world by 2025. São Paulo has the largest gay pride parade in the world. I'll admit Copacabana beach is awesome, but if we are going to delete a Brazilian city, it should be Rio. AbstractIllusions (talk) 02:33, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

discuss

add Central America

I think that this concept from physical geography is enough vital for inclusion here

Support

1. As nom Dawid2009 (talk) 21:43, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
2. Support (Ios2019 (talk) 08:44, 24 January 2019 (UTC)).

Oppose

1. Oppose. I don't think it's needed. Central America is part of North America. I'd be more inclined to add either Caribbean or Caribbean Sea. Rreagan007 (talk) 05:38, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
2. Oppose Mesoamerica is already listed (under Ancient History). I think that a replace could be interesting, but with the current list: The overlap is clear. AbstractIllusions (talk) 03:31, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Discuss

Thinking, Either this or Caribbean, region or sea?  Carlwev  15:00, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Also unsure. I can see adding an article for the area between the United States and South America, but am not sure this is the right one. power~enwiki (π, ν) 15:48, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

remove Taj Mahal

How it is more vital than Ganges or even Uttar Pradesh?

Support

1. As nom Dawid2009 (talk) 21:43, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
2. Support --Thi (talk) 22:48, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose Gizza ^(t)(c) 10:46, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
2. --RekishiEJ (talk) 15:54, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
3. Oppose – On the occasion of comparison between architectural structure vs country in terms of debate architectural structure should undoubtedly be the method used. In terms of thing vs more encompassing thing it depends. But in terms of swap Taj Mahal with Uttar Pradesh... no way. And besides with that, in the architecture section it wouldn't be the first thing to go. At least Angkor Wat and Stonehenge would fall before it. J947 ^(c), at 03:26, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
4. Oppose (Ios2019 (talk) 06:33, 24 January 2019 (UTC)).

Discuss

The Taj Mahal is in the architecture section. It should be judged alongside the Great Pyramids, Colosseum, Great Wall, Stonehenge, Machu Picchu, etc. to which it is comparable. 9 articles is not a lot for architecture. There may be a case for replacing the landmarks with styles but the section itself shouldn't be reduced. The Ganges isn't a bad suggestion since physical geography is a bit weak at the moment but I don't see why Uttar Pradesh could be considered more vital. That would be like replacing the Colosseum with Lazio and the Parthenon with Attica Region. Absurd. Gizza ^(t)(c) 10:46, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

Agreed on all points. Now that we've cut several individual works of literature from the list, the architecture section is due for a revamp along the lines Gizza is suggesting. Cobblet (talk) 15:47, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

I think the Architecture section stands out like a sore thumb compared to the other sections the 'arts'. Support a rework and we possibly don't need 9 sub-articles to cover this adequately at this level. Crazynas ^t 17:03, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

The architecture section does feel out of place now that we have removed all of the individual works of art and literature. Perhaps we should just remove all of them and add History of architecture and a few more architecture or artistic movement articles. Rreagan007 (talk) 18:41, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

Remove Gunpowder

Explosive material at this level is sufficient.

Support

1. As nom. Dawid2009 (talk) 22:22, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
2. Support. Firearm is also here. wumbolo ^^^ 22:32, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
3. Support --Thi (talk) 07:58, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose While there is some relationship between the two, it's not a very strong one (would you use gunpowder to demolish a building?), and the Tang Chinese invention of gunpowder and the European invention of modern explosives about a thousand years later are independently significant events in the history of technology that are worth treating separately at this level. Cobblet (talk) 23:27, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
2. The same as Cobblet.--RekishiEJ (talk) 13:49, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
3. Oppose (Ios2019 (talk) 06:53, 24 January 2019 (UTC)).
4. Oppose per Cobblet's argument Orser67 (talk) 02:21, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Discuss

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

remove Soybean

It is less vital than apple and lemon.

Support

1. As nom. Dawid2009 (talk) 22:22, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
2. Support (Ios2019 (talk) 06:53, 24 January 2019 (UTC)).

Oppose

1. Strong oppose Ridiculous. Soy is a staple food in Asia and one of the world's most commercially important crops. Cobblet (talk) 23:29, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
2. Oppose. For vegetarians it is no doubt quite vital.--RekishiEJ (talk) 13:49, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
3. Oppose. As much as I despise soy, it's a very important crop worldwide. It's most certainly more vital than apples or lemons. Rreagan007 (talk) 22:56, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
4. Opppose not just because of vegetarians or current commercial aspects but due to the historical aspects --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 21:08, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

Discuss

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

remove Alfred Hitchcock

We have four filmmakers despite fact cinematography (as part of art) exist shorter time than architecture and architecture is not represented by people. Hitchcock have much less pagewatchers than Walt Disney and I do not see why we have to add FOUR filmmakers ahead of Lummierre Brothers or Eadweard Muybridge.

Support

1. As nom. Dawid2009 (talk) 22:22, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
2. Support --Thi (talk) 08:00, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
3. Support directors are over-represented. 2 is probably enough. Gizza ^(t)(c) 01:13, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
4. Support removal; favor replacing with Auguste and Louis Lumière

   @Orser67: I think History of film would be better choice. Lumierres in very short encyclopedias (for example in popular science encyclopedias) usually there are described among inventors and piooners such like Alexander Bell or Wright Brothers (in context of inventions of 20th century) not among artists such like Da Vinci, musicans etc. They fit at the level 4 where we have big diversity list of filmmakers but level 3 is very rigorous and when we even do not list here "technology-piooners" such like Alexander Bell, Wright Brothers and we even rejected airplane I would consider history of film. Dawid2009 (talk) 20:47, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

   I could get behind that idea. But if not, I'd take the Lumierres over Hitchcock. Orser67 (talk) 20:55, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

5. Support I don't see how Kurosawa was any less expendable than Hitchcock; they can both go. Cobblet (talk) 03:31, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

   Then start a nomination for Armstrong too.... no way sound film or dramatic film was any less important to the 20th century then Jazz and if film only gets two then Jazz should have none as Jazz's short reign 1920s to 1970s (at the most) doesn't compare to films worldwide dominance of last century. GuzzyG (talk) 12:50, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

I'd cut Stravinsky, Wagner and Chopin ahead of Armstrong. In general I think artists and classical musicians are overrepresented. Cobblet (talk) 14:16, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose per my comment in the discuss section. GuzzyG (talk) 15:42, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
2. Oppose (Ios2019 (talk) 06:51, 24 January 2019 (UTC)).

Discuss

Directors are not overrepresented if you look at it as:

• Chaplin covers silent films/comedy - (yes, he made sound films but it doesn't count as representing them if the majority of his career are silent films)
• Hitchcock covers drama/talkies/golden age
• Kurosawa covers foreign film/one of asias greatest entertainment figures
• Disney covers animated/mainly he is notable for his business anyway

No way should film only be covered by comedy films and animation. Even if it is Chaplin. GuzzyG (talk) 15:42, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

remove Igor Stravinsky, add Pyotr Ilyich Tchaikovsky and Claude Debussy

If we need one Russian composser it should be Pyotr Ilyich Tchaikovsky, not Igor Stravinsky. Tchaikovsky is widely considedred as "Greatest Russian composer of all time". Based on fact that Stravinsky is not the most important Russian composer, I think that Debussy is better choice as one representant of 20th century classical music. He would be the one and the most important French musican on the list. Beyond that if you chack pageviews for Debussy and Stravinsky in foreign languages you clearly will see that Debussy is even more known worldwide than Stravinsky (Debussy has 36 wikidata entires with 5+ pagewievs per day while Stravinsky only 33 does).

Support

1. As nom. Dawid2009 (talk) 22:22, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
2. Support addition --Thi (talk) 08:09, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
3. Support removal. Gizza ^(t)(c) 01:18, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose Tchaikovsky is definitely a more popular composer than Stravinsky, and I'll even acknowledge that I like his music more than Stravinsky's; but that does not make his music "greater" or "more important." You will find many classical musicians with the opposite view, and I think it's fair to say that Stravinsky's music is more intensively studied. Nobody with a more than casual understanding of classical music will deny that his body of work had a revolutionary impact on 20th-century music and is much more innovative than Tchaikovsky's. I can think of any number of 20th-century composers whose music has nothing in common with Tchaikovsky's but it would be very difficult to find one who wasn't influenced in some way by Stravinsky. I could support swapping Stravinsky for Debussy (whose music IMO had a similar impact) but I oppose any increase to the number of classical musicians on the list: they already take up 70% of the musicians. Frankly, I could live with just listing Bach, Mozart and Beethoven. Cobblet (talk) 23:39, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
2. Oppose removal --Thi (talk) 08:09, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
3. Oppose addition. Gizza ^(t)(c) 01:18, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
4. Oppose We don't need more romantics and we certainly need a modern composer. GuzzyG (talk) 15:42, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
5. Oppose (Ios2019 (talk) 06:48, 24 January 2019 (UTC)).

Discuss

Swap: remove Hildegard of Bingen and Sophocles, add Sappho

Hilderald of Bingen is remarkable polymath and one of the most important medieval music figures but she still is not much more vital than Pindar who even is not listed at the level 5. Sappho is greatest female Greek writer of all time and she was very influencial for Pindar who is probably the most important ancient composer. Currently we have two man Greek writers (Homer and Sophocles) and none Greek females. On that basic I think that it would be really reasonable to swap Hilderald and Sophocles for Sappho.

Support

1. As nom. Dawid2009 (talk) 22:22, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
2. Support --Thi (talk) 08:13, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
3. Support Sappho is infinitely more vital historically then Hildegard in my opinion. GuzzyG (talk) 15:54, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
4. Support remove Hildegard of Bingen (Ios2019 (talk) 06:47, 24 January 2019 (UTC)).
5. SUpport Rreagan007 (talk) 20:51, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose removal of Sophocles. --Thi (talk) 08:13, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
2. Oppose removal of Sophocles. GuzzyG (talk) 15:54, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
3. Oppose removal of Sophocles, as he is probably the best known of the ancient Greek playwrights. Rreagan007 (talk) 20:51, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

Discuss

comment If Hidegard off Bingen will be removed and nomination for remove of Stravinski will be failed... I would suggest to add articles related with history of music but other than people. I am not sure having 9 composers with 4 from last 150 years and 9 from last 300 years is good idea. Dawid2009 (talk) 21:54, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

If you think there's too many composers why did you start a nomination to add Tchaikovsky and Debussy? most of these "history of" pages would be redundant on this level. GuzzyG (talk) 00:47, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

Music exist for thousands years, not for last decades such like film and if none older musican than Bach is not enaugh vital at this level (because of this level need be extremaly riurous) reasonable would be consider addittion of historical topics other than people for representation for music. Recently I have started several nominations related with compossers because of I was going to add some littly older instead 20-th century compossers (they alreadey cover 40% of representation at the moment). Anyway, now, when I see how extremaly overrepresented is section with musicans, I am not going to courage other editors to any increasing number of musicans. Section with musicans is clearly overrepresented if you see how other people are missed at this level and compare them to other categories. For example when we compare representation of musicans with representation of religious figures: we list Frederick Chopin ahead of John Paul II and four musicans from last 150 years ahead of Saint Peter or Zoroaster (We decided remove Zoroastere due to Zoroastrianism despite fact Zoroastrianism without Zoroastere would be less vital than for example Jazz without Armstrong). I do not suggest to swap Chopin for John Paul II (even if globally they have the same vitality, John Paul is not vital among other popes such like Chopin among other romantics) but listing handful other musicans ahead of Saint Peter or Zoroaster shows that we have more than enaugh of compossers or that simply section with Religious figures is underrepresented. Dawid2009 (talk) 23:37, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

@Katolophyromai: If we decide add Sappho where she should go? I just have found in archives conversation where you suggested to add Sappho to musican section but she is listed at the level 4 among writers. If we add her to writers we will have already 3 Greek writers. But thinkink about it some more, replacing Homer with Greek literature for the diversity would be interesing. If we are going to remove all non-historical figures probably we should also swap Homer for Greek literature. Dawid2009 (talk) 23:37, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

remove Global Positioning System

It is not eaugh vital at this level and it takes space for many other more important articles such like Travel, North Pole, South Pole, Exploration etc.

Support

1. As nom.  Dawid2009 (talk) 22:22, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
2. Support removal per nom, and I don't think we should be U.S.-centric. wumbolo ^^^ 22:42, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

   Changed from "support" to "support removal". wumbolo ^^^ 22:12, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

3. Support (Ios2019 (talk) 06:42, 24 January 2019 (UTC)).

Oppose

1. Oppose I disagree – this is one of the most important human achievements of the 20th century. I understand that the Poles arouse the imagination of some people but for me it is much more essential that this list cover revolutionary advances in technology. Cobblet (talk) 00:03, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

Swap with Satellite navigation

1. Support swap with satellite navigation. GPS isn't the only satellite navigation system. There's also GLONASS, BeiDou, and Galileo. Rreagan007 (talk) 20:09, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
2. Weak oppose Currently we list at navigation: GPS and Radar. Satelite navigation obviously is more vital than these two and it could be decent addition but still tgere are other more important articles not listed at this level. Even not necessary travel or travel-related articles but also Geodesy or Cartography. Dawid2009 (talk) 22:28, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Discuss

You're welcome to suggest adding exploration, but I don't mind the fact that we've chosen to list tourism and transport rather than the less focused concept of travel. Cobblet (talk) 00:03, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

You consider transport/tourism/esploration as part of travel. Even despite fact travel is at the level 4. It is reasonable to we try add travel in future ;) Dawid2009 (talk) 14:48, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

I could live with Rreagan007's suggested swap if satellite navigation were on the level 4 list. Cobblet (talk) 04:59, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

That's a fair point. I've nominated it at Level 4. Rreagan007 (talk) 05:32, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

NOTE: Satellite navigation is now listed at Level 4. Rreagan007 (talk) 21:46, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

add Goddess (or remove God)

Currently we have Deity and God at this level but we do not have Goddess. Add God ahead of Goddess it is such like add male ahead of female. I would prefer add Goddess because of religion is strongly underrepresented. Recently wew have removed theism despite fact it cover polytheism and monotheism, and these two concepts often were nominating here.

Support

1. As nom. Dawid2009 (talk) 22:22, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose. This is inaccurate; God (male deity) is the article about the male deity. wumbolo ^^^ 22:38, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
2. Oppose addition; Neutral on removal. There is obvious overlap between God and Deity, so removing one might be okay, but I don't think adding goddess is necessary at this level, as "god" can be masculine or gender neutral. Rreagan007 (talk) 00:25, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
3. Oppose --Thi (talk) 08:18, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
4. Oppose (Ios2019 (talk) 05:49, 24 January 2019 (UTC)).
5. Oppose GuzzyG (talk) 06:25, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Discuss

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

swap Ship for Maritime transport

Maritime transport is more vital than ship because of transport is at the evel 2 and Vehicle is at the level 4. I am also generally oppose additions of more types of ships and weapons.

Support

1. As nom. Dawid2009 (talk) 22:22, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
2. Support (Ios2019 (talk) 05:43, 24 January 2019 (UTC)).

Oppose

1. Oppose --Thi (talk) 08:20, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
2. Oppose sometimes the most prominent specific example is more vital than the general category. Nobody goes to Google or Wikipedia and searches for "maritime transport". If a person wanted to learn about ships and boats, they would type in "ship" or "boat" respectively. The number of page views, page watchers and language versions all attest to the greater importance of ship than maritime transport. Gizza ^(t)(c) 07:26, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

   Recently we have removed password due to it is covered by Authentication despite fact "Nobody goes to Google or Wikipedia and search for "Authentication""

   There is a much larger gap in pageviews between ship and maritime transport compared to password and authentication [1]. Password gets about 21% more pageviews while ship gets 254% more views. And that proposal was about removing one of the two articles instead of swapping one for another. I wouldn't necessarily be against swapping authentication for password at that level but don't support both. Also ships/boats are still the primary form of maritime transport whereas passwords are declining in usage in many situations where authentication is required, being replaced by biometrics like fingerprints and other factors. Gizza ^(t)(c) 21:07, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

3. Oppose per Gizza RJFJR (talk) 20:13, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
4. Oppose GuzzyG (talk) 06:26, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Discuss

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

swap Fishing for Hunter-gatherer

Fishing is not vital at the same level what martial arts or football. At the level 3 we should cover more important concepts such like Hunter-gatherer, exploration, travel, eventually nomad etc.

Support

1. As nom. Dawid2009 (talk) 22:22, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose --Thi (talk) 08:19, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
2. Oppose I don't have any objections over Hunter-gatherer being inserted into vital article list. Fishing is, and will be a important virtue in classification and survival in many aspects. It's the activity which was performed way back from several millennia, it shouldn't be swapped. Having own processes, uproot of problematic degradation of nutritional value, cultivation and subsequently making it a tradition. One couldn't think of living without it; forget about replacing it rather supporting addition. Rekonedth (talk) 06:30, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
3. Oppose per Rekonedth RJFJR (talk) 20:13, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
4. Oppose (Ios2019 (talk) 05:42, 24 January 2019 (UTC)).
5. Oppose GuzzyG (talk) 06:25, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Discuss

I don't have any objections over Hunter-gatherer being inserted into vital article list - hmmm. If we try list Hunter-gatherer we will have more chances to add Farm at this level. And if we list farm we will do not need list some animals (for example pig) which are historically more important than dozen people (listed here) who make constribute to society. Adding more general articles instead specifics (such like animals) keep more space for other needed articles. Dawid2009 (talk) 08:03, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

swap Mount Everest for Seven Summits

Seven summits recently/currently in context of exploration certainly are not less vital than north pole + south pole (compare famous of Junko Tabei and Reinhold Messner with Ann Bancroft and Marek Kamiński). Also moutaineers recently are more often regarded as "National Geographic" person of the year" than polar people ([2]). Mount Everest probably is not enaugh vital when we do not list Coral Sea which is the biggest sea in the world (or Australia (continent) as part of Oceania). Mount Everest very vital is generaally only in context of Seven Summits than in any other context (there are other mountains which are not less vital than Mount Everest). Article about seven summits can give imagination to human knowlage about world such like covering dozen cities at this level but I am not sure how important is Mount Everest outside fact that this mountain is very famous. Wikiproject about mountains is much larger than any other wikiproject related with phisical geography (deserts/forests, etc) and is nearly big such like wikiproject related with cities so I think that article about seven summits wuld reasonable for addition to cover littly more mountains. If we decide list Seven Summits we will have informations about some other vital mountains. For example currently we list Lake Victoria but we do not list Kilimanjaro. Other complex article which maybe is reasonable at this level is Seven Wonders of the Ancient World (What do you think about swapping some buildings for styles and Seve Wonders of the Acient World?).

Support

1. As nom. Dawid2009 (talk) 07:58, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
2. Support removal of Mount Everest. No single mountain should be vital at this level. Cobblet (talk) 01:09, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
3. Support removal as it is already covered by Himalayas, which is already listed at this level. It is the tallest mountain in the world, so if any single mountain is vital at this level, it would be this one. However, I don't think any single mountain merits inclusion at this level. Rreagan007 (talk) 22:36, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
4. Support removal GuzzyG (talk) 22:45, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
5. Support removal per above and previous discussion. Gizza ^(t)(c) 01:41, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose addition of Seven Summits. As purely a mountaineering topic, it's less vital than mountaineering itself, which is very far down the list as far as vital human activities go. Cobblet (talk) 01:09, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
2. Oppose addition of Seven Summits. --Thi (talk) 20:34, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
3. Oppose addition Rreagan007 (talk) 22:36, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
4. Oppose addition GuzzyG (talk) 22:45, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
5. Oppose addition – I can't see the some random philosopher being included ahead of Everest. J947 ^(c), at 18:56, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

   I don't think that's a very good way to judge. I suggest you try comparing it to other articles listed in the geography section and other geography articles that could potentially be added to the geography section.

   Danube ahead of Everest? No way. J947 ^(c), at 00:01, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

   That's certainly a more appropriate comparison, but Everest is covered by Himalayas, which is already listed. Rreagan007 (talk) 21:20, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

   Okay, didn't realise that. I'll become neutral on removal, and change the oppose to oppose addition. Suppose 4 rivers and 4 mountain ranges is good, though if another river is added I'd prefer Everest to come back. J947 ^(c), at 21:28, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

   Fair enough, but at this point Danube looks very unlikely to pass. I'm considering just withdrawing the nomination. Rreagan007 (talk) 21:51, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

6. Oppose (Ios2019 (talk) 07:52, 2 February 2019 (UTC)).
7. Oppose addition Gizza ^(t)(c) 01:41, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Discuss

I would suggest add exploration. Moutanieering is not needed when we also have tourism what also is littly similar. Seven summits is something more reasonable to human knowlage than Mount Everest. Also moutanieering historically is not more vital than all not listed sports/activities related with recreation at the level 4. Dawid2009 (talk) 07:18, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

add Filmmaking and Cinematography

Both these articles are enaugh vital at this level. Performance art does not cover Filmmaking and film is listed at the level 2. Vitality of Cinematography is comparable to vitality of Photography and vitality of Animation.

Support

1. As nom. Dawid2009 (talk) 07:58, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose Saying things are vital doesn't make them so. Film plus a handful of filmmakers is enough. Cobblet (talk) 01:01, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
2. Oppose --Thi (talk) 20:35, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
3. Oppose covered by Film. RJFJR (talk) 21:34, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
4. Oppose (Ios2019 (talk) 05:39, 24 January 2019 (UTC)).
5. Oppose GuzzyG (talk) 06:24, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
6. Oppose. History of film would be more vital at this level. Rreagan007 (talk) 01:07, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Discuss

I could see potentially adding one of these, but do we really need both at this level? Rreagan007 (talk) 23:29, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

There does seem to be a lot of overlap. RJFJR (talk) 21:34, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

@Rreagan007: In article about film, there is information that cinematography is film industry so film industry probably would be better choice (specifficaly when we are going to remove Kurosava because of in article about film industry we have information about Bollywood). Filmmaking probably is not good choice (We intentionally do not list Performance art due to overlap with Performing art at the level 2 and other articles at the level 3). Potentially good choice for addition is also History of film. In this article we have information about Loumierre Brothers and if we are going to add History of Architecture we should list history of film. Dawid2009 (talk) 19:48, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Add Drama

If we are going to list Comedy at this level, then we should also list drama. It used to be on the list, but was removed because of concerns that it overlapped too much with Theater and Tragedy. The article on tragedy has since been removed, and the articles on comedy and drama are both much broader in scope than just covering those subjects within theater.

Support

1. Support as nom. Rreagan007 (talk) 07:28, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
2. Support (Ios2019 (talk) 14:23, 23 January 2019 (UTC)).
3. Support GuzzyG (talk) 22:45, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose The article is about the literary mode, not the media genre. I could support an article on the latter (which would be Drama (film and television), but it's unfortunately a stub and not on any lower-level vital article list); but the concept of dramatic expression in the arts is already well covered in the articles on the arts themselves, and I'm very far from convinced that there's much to be gained from treating the topic in a standalone article. It certainly gains nothing from this article: the sections on Western and non-Western theatre cover the same ground as theatre, only more poorly; and the bits about non-theatrical arts hardly talk about the dramatic element at all. I think narrative may be a more coherent topic than drama. Cobblet (talk) 05:35, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
2. Oppose --Thi (talk) 19:26, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Discuss

• Link to removal discussion: Wikipedia_talk:Vital_articles/Archive_7#Remove_Drama. --Yair rand (talk) 23:03, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
  • My thinking at the time is that the wikipedia page for Drama says clearly that it is what happens in a theater. That is their definition, explained at length. I agree with Rreagan007's argument in principle, but the problem is that they aren't defining drama as the reverse mask to comedy on the page, they are defining it as things that happen in a theater. As the page explains: "The use of 'drama' in a more narrow sense to designate a specific type of play dates from the modern era." So, that creates the redundancy. Maybe Tragedy is the better add? I don't know. I won't vote, I'll trust the hive here. AbstractIllusions (talk) 01:26, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
    • The very first sentence of the article says: "Drama is the specific mode of fiction represented in performance: a play, opera, mime, ballet, etc, performed in a theatre, or on radio or television." Tragedy is a subset of drama, and shouldn't be the article included at this level. Rreagan007 (talk) 01:35, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
      • According to the page, Tragedy is not a subset of drama (genre): "Drama" in this sense refers to a play that is neither a comedy nor a tragedy." Your justification is that drama is a genre like comedy. Cool, but that is deliberately not what the article Drama is about. Indeed you'll see that 'Comedy', 'Drama', and 'Tragedy' are listed as a types on that article. I would be happy with Drama replacing 'Theater,' for what its worth. AbstractIllusions (talk) 04:24, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Remove History of India

Support

1. Support (Ios2019 (talk) 18:25, 24 January 2019 (UTC)).

Oppose

1. Oppose No rationale given. The history of South Asia is as important as that of any other region in Asia or the world. Cobblet (talk) 18:43, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
2. Oppose Without a rationale, there's no way to assess. AbstractIllusions (talk) 01:15, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
3. Oppose No rationale given Dawid2009 (talk) 14:57, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
4. Oppose --Thi (talk) 19:25, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
5. Oppose No rationale given. GuzzyG (talk) 06:24, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
6. Weak oppose. I think it's vital enough to remain at this level. Rreagan007 (talk) 01:11, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Discuss

• Comment It's certainly helpful when nominators give their rationale for a nomination, but it's not actually necessary to make an assessment. Just ask yourself whether you think the article nominated belongs in the 1,000 most vital articles or not and make your own judgment. Rreagan007 (talk) 01:32, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose. J947 ^(c), at 09:18, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Remove Ibn Khaldun

Support

1. Support (Ios2019 (talk) 18:54, 24 January 2019 (UTC)).
2. Support --Thi (talk) 19:00, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose IMO proposals with no rationale whatsoever should be a SNOW speedy close. These are supposed to be consensus-building discussions, not referendums on the popularity of a subject. Cobblet (talk) 23:28, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
2. Oppose I support arguments. Cobblet is right. AbstractIllusions (talk) 01:14, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
3. Oppose we need a intellectual from his time and place. GuzzyG (talk) 14:48, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

Discuss

• Comment There is currently no requirement to explicitly give a reason for a nomination. I think nominations with well-articulated rationals have a much better chance of success, but some nominations pass with very little reasoning given in the initial nomination. Often, other voters will come along and give their own rationals for which way they decide to vote, and personally I always try to think of the best reasons for and against each nomination that I vote on. And WP:SNOW closes are for when nominations have an almost 0 chance of success. That's not the case here, so a snow close would be inappropriate. Rreagan007 (talk) 01:27, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

Actually, there is such a requirement: consensus-building is Wikipedia policy. !Votes are just that, not votes. Elsewhere on Wikipedia, !votes that don't contribute to a discussion aren't given any weight. Why should we act any differently here? Cobblet (talk) 02:04, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

Because here on the Vital Articles nominations, the process for adding and removing articles to these lists actually is a straight vote count. That process of voting is what has achieved consensus among the contributors here, that a straight vote count with prescribed voting percentages is what works best here for determining which articles get added to and removed from these lists. Rreagan007 (talk) 03:15, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

The answer to the question "why do we do act this way?" can't be "because we do." I'm not saying we shouldn't !vote, and I have no problem with the procedure we follow in counting !votes. What I am saying is that for too long we've been ignoring one of Wikipedia's conventional rules: !votes that don't contribute to a discussion shouldn't be given any weight. WP:CONSENSUS says, "Decision making and reaching consensus involve an effort to incorporate all editors' legitimate concerns." How can we discuss concerns about Ibn Khaldun being on the list when those concerns aren't even expressed? Cobblet (talk) 04:54, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

I hope that the list is not a result of straight vote count, but that that is a community-agreed upon form of organizing discussion to reach consensus. I've changed my vote, others have changed their votes based on the discussion. Hence why at least starting off the discussion with even a brief justification is necessary (and certainly the strong and widely followed norm here). Indeed, as the FAQ clearly states: "Be sure to clearly explain your reasons for the replacement." (edit conflict)AbstractIllusions (talk) 04:59, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

So let's just get this straight right now. Is there anyone here who thinks that if the vote were 5-4 and I thought the supports had the stronger case, they would want me to close a nomination as passed? And conversely if the vote were 7-3 and I thought the opposes had the stronger argument, they would want me to close a nomination as failed? I can tell you right now that there is no way a system like that would ever work here. Our local consensus of a straight voting system, while not perfect, has worked amazingly well here for years, and I honestly don't think any other system would really work. Rreagan007 (talk) 05:41, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

Total straw man – nobody's said anything about having to decide which side had the stronger case. What's the problem with discarding !votes that don't advance some form of argument? Cobblet (talk) 06:11, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

From a practical standpoint, it's not really an issue. This is an inherently subjective process and most "arguments" for inclusion or exclusion from the list are little more than "I do[n't] think this article merits inclusion because it's more[less] important than the other articles listed already". So if someone makes a nomination for addition without explicitly stating a rationale, you can simply infer that they think the article is as or more important than some of the ones already listed, and vice versa for removals. It would certainly be helpful for them to specify which articles they think it is more/less important than, but not entirely necessary. I know what articles are already listed, so I can compare whatever article is nominated to the articles already listed. Rreagan007 (talk) 06:17, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but how is the way we discuss things on Wikipedia not a practical issue? Wikipedia:Polling is not a substitute for discussion#Straw poll guidelines is specifically about handling straw polls in practice. The problem I'm talking about is not the one you identified. I'm not saying we don't know what the nominator wants the outcome to be. The problem is we don't know why they want that outcome. "Decision making and reaching consensus involve an effort to incorporate all editors' legitimate concerns." When no legitimate concerns are expressed, there's nothing to decide. This isn't and never was about who had the "stronger" case – this is about a case not being made at all. Cobblet (talk) 06:41, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

I absolutely think a nominator should provide their rationale, I just don't think it is strictly necessary because it can be inferred. Let's use this nomination as an example. I can easily infer that the nominator doesn't think that Ibn Khaldun is as important as the other philosophers that we currently list at this level and so he should be removed to make room for other articles that could be added. Rreagan007 (talk) 07:34, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

Or that they overlap with already covered material. Or that we have too many people listed. Or that we have too many philosophers listed. Or that the nominator doesn't actually know about the topic. It is strictly necessary: It is the strong project norm, it is in the FAQ, it is part of the bedrock of all wikipedia discussion regarding consensus. And it avoids people agreeing or disagreeing with a nominator for very different reasons than those intended. AbstractIllusions (talk) 12:47, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

Rreagan007, do you not understand what a rationale is? Why does the nominator think Ibn Khaldun isn't as important as the other philosophers? Is that even what the nominator is thinking? For all we know, the nominator wants to remove Ibn Khaldun and History of India because both article titles contain the capital letter I: that would be an example of a concern that isn't "legitimate." I have no idea whether the nominator's concerns are legitimate if I don't know what they are at all. Cobblet (talk) 13:24, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

I think that the default rationale is "Not vital at this level". Not all people are very verbal people and not all people can spell out specific details even when they know that something is right or wrong. Some topics were added to the list in the past without discussion. If you disagree with the nominator, you can write about your own rationales. Words can be misleading and people don't always have the same context. If you write at the internet for example that "tortoises are not vital" there is always someone who asks "why do you hate tortoises?" - "You have the right to remain silent... Anything you say may be used against you..." --Thi (talk) 14:12, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

"Not vital at this level" is not a rationale. An opinion is not an argument. Feeling that something is right or wrong is not a reason for why it is right or wrong. "Discussing with the other party" is an integral part of Wikipedia's policy on dispute resolution. If you choose not to discuss, there's no dispute to resolve. Moreover, an encyclopedia is a verbal medium: if you neither trust words nor your ability to use them, you can't contribute effectively to building an encyclopedia. If you think dealing with Wikipedians is like dealing with the police, you're going to have a bad time here. Cobblet (talk) 15:00, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

if someone makes a nomination for addition without explicitly stating a rationale, you can simply infer that they think the article is as or more important than some of the ones already listed - I agree with yours exmplains at this sectgion a lot of Reagan ,but this one rationale is not reasonable rationale and probably go to nowhere. Why we have to assume that currently diversity of vital aticles is well builed based on long consensus and we can simply compare articles each other in relevant sections? If we are going to make consensus based on: "article must be comparable to other articles in the same category" our diversity will not be consensually better and will be the same whole time. For example if we will make process in a way: "recent figure need be comparable to filmmakers on VA 3 to be listed at the level 3" and "country need be comparable to other countries on VA 3 to be listed at the level 3" countries always are underrepresented and and people obverrepresented. People will be favorize by inclusionism while we will have big deletionism or cities which are less vital than countries but obviously much more vital than a lot of people on the list. The same problem is in other sections at the level 4 as well. Why we have to assume that (for example) quota for universities need be 62 and quota for languages 88, or quota for writers 250 and quota for sport people 100? Why we need assume that so long consensus was enaugh for this diversity and we will naver make new changes? Comprasion articles in style: "this one man is not much less vital than other figures from the same category" is issue. Dawid2009 (talk) 16:28, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

This section is not the place to talk about quotas. Anyway in this section I agree with Cobblet a lot. We should not tolerate nominations without a rationale or indeed votes (not !votes because quite honestly this is entirely pure vote count, which we should change exponentially) without one. Imagine if someone turned up to AfD without any deletion rationale. That falls at the 'duh' end of speedy closes. Even someone just saying 'delete' followed by a signature bang in the centre of an AfD discussion falls afoul of guidelines. 95+% of my votes here (mostly at VA4) include a rationale, ranging from a wall-of-text extravaganza to 'per [user]'. Only when I can't think of anything to say and it is an obvious vote do I resort to just bold lettering and signature. J947 ^(c), at 03:04, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Okay so after thinking about this some more I do think that some minimal amount of a rationale should be provided for a nomination to pass, but if the nominator does not provide it and a later support vote comes along and provides it, then I think that is sufficient. Same goes for opposes. Every oppose vote doesn't have to restate the same rationale, but at least one oppose vote should state some kind of rationale. Rreagan007 (talk) 21:40, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

I am perfectly fine with that. The problem is that there are a few threads on this page that would not adhere to as simple a change as that. Also, I still think the onus is on the nominator to provide a rationale if it not fairly obvious enough for another editor to chip in and provide one. J947 ^(c), at 21:59, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

We require people to start a proposal here instead of boldly changing the list of vital articles because apart from Level 5, the list is a product of consensus. If the nominator disagrees with the current consensus and wants it changed to reflect a new consensus, it's only fair for them to begin the process of reaching that new consensus by explaining their disagreement with the current one. We revert undiscussed changes to the list on the spot; we should also be reverting proposals without a rationale on the spot. In fact, from now on, I think I'll start doing that at levels 1, 2 and 3. Cobblet (talk) 22:41, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Just do it at 1 and 2 for now. This may get too heated if you do it here, as this is a bigger base and has this discussion. We need to reach an appropriate consensus first. J947 ^(c), at 05:47, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

So the more I think about this, the more I agree that we have gotten a little too lazy about not stating our rationale for supporting or opposing a nomination. As I state above, every support and oppose doesn't have to explicitly state a rationale, as they can simply be agreeing with the rationales that have preceded their vote. I'm not opposed to people speedy closing nominations that provide no rationales, though if another editor comes along and "saves" the nomination by providing a rationale before it's closed, that should be good enough. Also, if none of the opposes express any rationale whatsoever for their opposition, then their opposes can simply be ignored. Rreagan007 (talk) 01:22, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Reworking the architecture section

A number of editors in the discussion on removing Taj Mahal suggested that it's time for us to rethink the way this list presents architecture. Apart from religious texts, we've previously removed all of the individual works of art and literature from the list, and have added in their place some articles related to artistic styles, genres and media. Architecture has become an outlier, being primarily represented by specific individual structures. Therefore, it's been suggested we do the same thing for architecture what we did for the arts in general – remove some or all of the individual structures, and replace them with articles on broader architectural concepts.

I have no problem with that in principle. I also have no strong opinion on how many structures we remove, or how many articles to add in their place. Here are my thoughts on the matter:

• If we keep any individual architectural works, I suggest two in particular are worth keeping: the Great Pyramid of Giza, and the Great Wall of China. I have in mind not only the immense historical and cultural significance of both works, but also the way they rather complement one another in reflecting the symbolic and functional value of architecture. I wouldn't mind if we kept more than these two, but keeping only one of them would feel a bit unbalanced to me.
• Before discussing what we should add, it's worth pointing out that many articles on the list are strongly related to architecture even though they're not listed under the Arts section, such as construction, civil engineering, garden, and most of the articles in the Materials and Structures section under Technology.
• History of architecture is the single most obvious addition, given that history of art does not discuss architecture in detail, and we also already list history of literature and history of music which I think are comparable in significance.
• The traditional way of describing the history of architecture, or at least the history of Western architecture, tends to emphasize polite architecture: works built by professional architects who make stylistic choices meant to convey a sense of import or to impress a cultural elite. I'd suggest adding vernacular architecture as a way of counteracting this kind of bias towards "learned" or "formal" architecture, but that article's not on level 4. (If the distinction seems a bit abstract, compare Romanesque architecture with Romanesque secular and domestic architecture.)
• Another topic that potentially could fulfill the same purpose of representing vernacular architecture is domestic architecture, except it's not even an article: it's a redirect to house, which we removed in favour of home a while back. I personally wouldn't mind listing both house and home, and if we're to add categories of architecture by function, I think house should be prioritized over types of polite architecture such as sacred architecture or monument. Cobblet (talk) 04:42, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Add Cat

Support

1. Support (Ios2019 (talk) 12:25, 2 February 2019 (UTC)).
2. Weak support – Right now we list four mammals, namely dog, horse, cattle, and human. It seems fairly reasonable to include another one, as they are the closest we can call to intelligent life. It seems rather wrong to include dog but not cat, as cat is a more common pet. Dog would be here for it's long-time significance, yet going back to the early stages of that, wolf was probably on the same page. Furthermore, it is good to have a representative of felidae—probably the largest class of mammals—and cat would undoubtedly be the one. Monkey could also be an option (note: this was originally deleted by Cobblet but I reverted it. This can be considered a statement on behalf of Ios2019). J947 ^(c), at 21:22, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
3. Support tentatively. --Thi (talk) 00:11, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Weak oppose. Horse is important historically for transportation/warfare. Cows are important historically for meat and milk. Dogs are important historically as service animals and for companionship. Cats are pretty much only companion animals and overlap in that area with dogs. It's a close call, but I don't think it belongs in level 3. Rreagan007 (talk) 01:02, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Discuss

I've suggested this before, but if we were to add an animal, my preference now would be to pick another livestock animal (sheep or pig; sheep has failed before) or rat, which is significant for reasons completely different from any of the animals currently listed (pest, ubiquitous distribution to the point of invasiveness, experimental model, and representative of rodents, the largest order within Mammalia). Cobblet (talk) 22:19, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

Horse, dog and cattle have more historical significance. Sheep, pig and chicken are other animals worth thinking about, but might not be important enough. Cat's although having pest control significance, are important mostly as pets. Would pet be a better choice? Rodent and Primate are other articles I was thinking about.  Carlwev  13:28, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

I would consider add farm ahead sheep or ping and pet ahead of cat (even when we have dog already on the list). When we list fishing reasonable is add farm because of farm is not less influencial than fishing. And if we are going to keep both (fishing and farm) we also should have Hunter-gatherer. Dawid2009 (talk) 21:12, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Remove Mercury, Venus, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus and Neptune

Solar System and Planet are level 3. Why list so many planets a level ahead of this many stars and this many galaxies?

Support

1. Support as nom. wumbolo ^^^ 1:42 pm, Today (UTC+1)

Oppose

1. Oppose --Thi (talk) 12:58, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
2. Oppose (Ios2019 (talk) 13:02, 2 February 2019 (UTC)).
3. Oppose Because the Solar System is where we live. Cobblet (talk) 17:23, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
4. Oppose. I appreciate the logic of the nomination, but the individual planets are just too important not to list here. Every school child learns the names of the planets in grade school, but many don't learn the names of stars and galaxies, though I could see maybe adding a few at this level like Polaris or Andromeda Galaxy Rreagan007 (talk) 18:59, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
5. Oppose Wait, what? pbp 20:19, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
6. Partial oppose – If Earth is at Level 1, these belong at level 3. However, I weakly support removing Neptune and Uranus as they have little link to the Earth, and aren't as famous and vital as Jupiter, Saturn, and the large pieces of rocky road closer to the sun. I appreciate the nom's rationale, and my idea could be a small way to improve level-by-level stuff. J947 ^(c), at 20:49, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
7. Oppose all except Uranus and Neptune which I support removing. Agree with J947. If this list is meant to be anthropocentric (and most of it is), then the significance of the planets beyond Saturn diminishes greatly. They seem to be on the list for completeness more than anything. It's like adding Antarctica on Level 2 alongside the inhabited continents which I disagree with too. In the field of astronomy, eclipses have been more central to human culture than the outer planets. Gizza ^(t)(c) 08:11, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Discuss

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Remove Ion

Not vital at this level from the properties side, and only 4 ions are listed at level 4 (compare to e.g. 102 chemical elements). Ionic compound might have to be added to level 4 at least, because we have Molecule at level 3.

Support

1. Support as nom. wumbolo ^^^ 13:08, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
2. Support --Thi (talk) 13:30, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
3. Support An ion is just an atom (or molecule) with a charge, and we list both of those at this level so listing ion separately is unnecessary. I don't think ion is any more vital at this level than Isotope, which we don't list at this level. Rreagan007 (talk) 18:57, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
4. Weak support per nom and Rreagan. J947 ^(c), at 20:52, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
5. Support GuzzyG (talk) 06:23, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
6. Support RJFJR (talk) 17:14, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose (Ios2019 (talk) 14:22, 2 February 2019 (UTC)).

Discuss

I count five ions (cyanide, carbonate, chloride, nitrate, sulfate) and fifteen ionic compounds (two hydroxides, two carbonates, sodium bicarbonate, two chlorides, three nitrates, four sulfates, sodium silicate) at level 4. (By the way, polymers should be listed under their own section, not classified by functional group, especially when polyvinyl chloride does not even contain the chloride ion.) Cobblet (talk) 14:59, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

Remove Moses

This will probably be controversial, but I don't think this article deserves to be listed here. There are currently 2 people in the Level 3 people section that are under the Mythology section in Levels 4 & 5: Moses and Abraham. They were moved there a while ago because there was a general consensus that since most historical scholars consider them to be mythical figures, they should be placed under the mythological figures section. Having Moses (and Abraham) listed in the people section is akin to having Hercules or Achilles listed in the people section. Also, out of the 9 people in this section, 6 of them are from the Abrahamic religions. I think that's a bit much and removing the lesser important of the 2 mythological characters listed here is warranted.

Support

1. Support as nom. Rreagan007 (talk) 02:57, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
2. Support neither should be on here, they're both mythological and no other cultures mythological beings are on here. GuzzyG (talk) 04:33, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

   Well, technically, god is listed, and I'm sure that almost everyone would agree that at least some gods are mythical. Rreagan007 (talk) 05:51, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

   That article's topic is specifically as understood within monotheism. --Yair rand (talk) 06:08, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

3. Support --Thi (talk) 08:04, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
4. Support Abrahamic religions seem overrepresented among religious figures (Pew has Abrahamic religions at 55% of world population ) and anything vital about Moses seems like it would be covered in other vital articles. Moses is mainly significant as a legendary figure to Abrahamic religions, three of which are listed as vital articles. Additionally, the main source on Moses's life, the Bible, is listed as a vital article, as is the Talmud, which afaik contains more stories related to Moses. I'd personally favor swapping in someone like Mahavira, Zoroaster, or Guru Nanak, or adding more political leaders. Orser67 (talk) 02:11, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

   @Orser67: The chart linked says that non-Abrahamic organized religions are only 23% of the world population (29% if you include folk religions). With Moses swapped with a one of those suggestions, they would be 4/9 or or 5/10, depending on whether Confucius is counted, which would clearly be overrepresentation for non-Abrahamic religions and underrepresentation for Abrahamic religions. --Yair rand (talk) 03:23, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Strong Oppose Except with the removal of Abraham (Ios2019 (talk) 12:44, 3 February 2019 (UTC)).
2. Oppose. First of all, six of nine religious figures being from Abrahamic religions isn't far from the actual global demographics, especially if you consider Confucius (currently listed under philosophers and social scientists) as debatably within the religious figures. (~64% of people associated with a religion are associated with an Abrahamic religion.) Moses, understood in his role in the political founding of the Jewish Nation, the establishment of the Biblical law, philosophy, and moral code, and being a critical figure in a large portion of the world's religions, is extremely vital at this level. --Yair rand (talk) 06:08, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
3. Oppose No rationale given why Abraham is more vital than Moses (fact that Abrahamic religions are called Abrahamic religious does not mean that Abraham is desribed in encyclopedias ahead of Moses), no rationale given why Moses and Abraham have to go from this list before other mythological figures (Laozi and Homer). Also calling Abrahamic religon "overrepresented" is unreasonable when Religious section is underrepresented as whole. Swapping Moses and Abraham for historical figures would be reasonable but I do not see why Moses have to be straight removed without any swap. Dawid2009 (talk) 23:37, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

Comment

• Either way they're not real historical people as determined by scholars and as such should not be in the people category. (Just like they're not at level 4). No proper encyclopedia is going to claim that these are 100% without a doubt real people. We should not here. GuzzyG (talk) 09:31, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Swap: Remove Metric system, add International System of Units

SI is the modern form of the metric system, and is the most widely used system of measurement.

Support

1. Support as nom. --Thi (talk) 09:08, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
2. Strong Support (Ios2019 (talk) 12:46, 3 February 2019 (UTC)).
3. Support Gizza ^(t)(c) 00:15, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
4. Support GuzzyG (talk) 06:20, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
5. Support I read a bunch on this (thanks for the rabbit hole, ya'll), but in the end it was a gut call. Would it be more important for wikipedia to have a good article on Metric system or ISU? I think ISU based on contemporary usage. AbstractIllusions (talk) 03:16, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
6. Support Per above. Dawid2009 (talk) 09:03, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose SI belongs to metric system, and the latter is better known to the public and elementary school students than the former.--RekishiEJ (talk) 15:37, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
2. Oppose. After thinking about it and looking over both articles, I think we should keep things the way they are. We generally list the broader article at Level 3 and the article on the metric system is certainly the broader article, and it actually covers the SI very well. Rreagan007 (talk) 23:36, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Discuss

User:Rreagan007, you now have !votes for both sides. Cobblet (talk) 04:19, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. I meant to remove my support vote but accidentally removed someone else's. It's fixed now. Rreagan007 (talk) 04:34, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Swap: Remove Colosseum, add History of architecture

General topic instead of specific example of architecture.

Support

1. Support as nom. --Thi (talk) 09:39, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
2. Support We've added history of literature and history of music; history of architecture is just as vital. Cobblet (talk) 16:25, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
3. Support (Ios2019 (talk) 11:23, 4 February 2019 (UTC)).
4. Support GuzzyG (talk) 06:20, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
5. Support Among Seven Ancient Wonders, some of them we list at the level 3, others are at the level 5 but none is listed at the level 4 so if we decide remove Colosseum it will be not loss. Colosseum is vital but not vital such like Great Wall of China or Great Pyramid of Giza. History of architecture is decent addition and most of individual works should be removed because of adding individual work ahead of architecture style it is such like adding song ahead of music genere. Dawid2009 (talk) 22:16, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

   BTW that list (Seven Wonders of the Ancient World) predates the Colosseum by a century or two. J947 ^(c), at 02:32, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

   At this list is mentioned "Colossus of Rhodes", not " Colosseum" (Honestly I did not noticed that and automatically assumed that Colosseum is here). The Colosseum is listed at the Wonders of the World. Dawid2009 (talk) 20:57, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose removal. The Romans were the greatest engineers of the ancient world. We need an example of Roman architecture/engineering on the list if we are going to list any individual structures. Rreagan007 (talk) 03:01, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

Discuss

Swap: Remove Machu Picchu, add Peru

Machu Picchu is an ancient architectural wonder and now a tourist attraction in Peru. Peru is a "a biodiverse country... home to several ancient cultures. Ranging from the Norte Chico civilization in the 32nd century BC, the oldest civilization in the Americas and one of the five cradles of civilization, to the Inca Empire, the largest state in pre-Columbian America, the territory now including Peru has one of the longest histories of civilization of any country, tracing its heritage back to the 4th millennia BCE." Modern Peru "is classified as an emerging market with a high level of human development... The country forms part of The Pacific Pumas, a political and economic grouping of countries along Latin America's Pacific coast that share common trends of positive growth, stable macroeconomic foundations, improved governance and an openness to global integration".

Support

1. Support as nom. --Thi (talk) 09:39, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
2. Support removal GuzzyG (talk) 06:22, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
3. Support per above reasoning. According to demographics of Peru Peru is a biodiverse country. It is also the largest not listed country from Latin America. Machu Picchu should not staying if we are going to remove most of individual architecture works. Dawid2009 (talk) 22:31, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose (Ios2019 (talk) 11:22, 4 February 2019 (UTC)).
2. Oppose addition. I don't think any more countries should be added before English-speaking countries like Ireland and New Zealand are added. Rreagan007 (talk) 04:42, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Discuss

Swap: Remove Parthenon, add Greek mythology

Both the Bible and the Greek mythology are important for understanding Western art history. "From the Midas touch to a Sisyphean task, from Pandora's box to Achilles' heel, characters from classical Greek and Roman mythology have an inescapable presence in everyday life and language. Their stories have been continually retold across all forms of culture - in novels, poems and plays, in music from opera to pop songs, and in every type of visual art, from ancient painting and sculpture to installation and video art today." [3]

Support

1. Support as nom. --Thi (talk) 09:39, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
2. Support removal Per my comments on restructuring the architecture section. Cobblet (talk) 16:36, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
3. Support – Removal easy decision. Addition not so. Honestly if we have myth(ology) at level 2 then we should have a country's mythology at level 3. And with 16 other representatives at level 4, Greek mythology is second only to Abrahamic mythology (17) at that level, which is adequately represented here by Abraham and the religions he exists in. Greek mythology and surrounds does not achieve that same level of representation at this level, even while scaled due to appropriate significance. J947 ^(c), at 05:34, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
4. Support removal GuzzyG (talk) 06:21, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
5. Support Greek mytholohy has enormous influence for Roman and Medieval European mythology, literature and artwork. Other sugestions mentioned by Cobblet shudl be covered at this level by History of literature, History of architecture, History of astronomy etc. but swapping Homer for Greek literature would be interesing. If we are going to remove non-historical figures and Sappho is going to section with writers we should swap Homer for Greek literature. Iliad and Oddysey never have been listed at this level but IMO these two are much more vital than any individual literature work which was listed or nominated to this level (except Mahabharata). Dawid2009 (talk) 22:46, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
6. Support removal (Ios2019 (talk) 09:01, 9 February 2019 (UTC)).

Oppose

1. Oppose addition Greek mythology has been proposed twice in the past and failed both times. I'll say again what I said last time: "Ancient Greece is listed and summarizes the impact of its culture on Western civilization. It is hardly clear to me that after having listed Ancient Greek philosophy as well, mythology should be the next aspect of the culture to be highlighted, ahead of Ancient Greek literature, Greek astronomy, Greek mathematics, Ancient Greek medicine, Ancient Greek technology, Ancient Greek art, Ancient Greek architecture and the like. Where does this end?" Cobblet (talk) 16:36, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

   On occasions similar to this I feel like other subject matter should be the object of comparison rather than other aspects of culture/science. It's hard to find an appropriate example here though, well without giving quite dissimilar comparisons. J947 ^(c), at 04:24, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

2. Oppose addition Can't decide with the removal, but I still think that 'Myth' (post-merge) covers the topic in a better way than culture-specific mythologies. If we were to add one specific mythology, I think it should be something without so significant overlap as Cobblet notes. AbstractIllusions (talk) 03:23, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
3. Oppose. It's more vital than Taj Mahal, which looks unlikely to be removed. Rreagan007 (talk) 21:06, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Discuss

Swap: Remove Stonehenge, add Republic of Ireland

Ireland is the tenth most prosperous country in the world. Recently the Brexit has caused a boom in investment and jobs in Ireland as companies relocate from London. "The Irish diaspora, one of the world's largest and most dispersed, has contributed to the globalisation of Irish culture, producing many prominent figures in art, music, and science."

Support

1. Support as nom. --Thi (talk) 09:39, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
2. Support removal Per my comments on restructuring the architecture section. Cobblet (talk) 16:42, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
3. Support addition As I said last time, this article is tailored to the English Wikipedia and as such the English-speaking country of Ireland should be on the list. Rreagan007 (talk) 17:27, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
4. Support removal GuzzyG (talk) 06:22, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
5. Support removal, no comment upon addition – No way we're listing Stonehenge before Ireland, but do we need either? J947 ^(c), at 08:06, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose addition The last proposal to add Ireland failed half a year ago. Repeating what I said there: "The list has plenty of European countries already, and Ireland is nowhere close to being the most vital unlisted European country, and is most definitely not the most vital unlisted country in general." Cobblet (talk) 16:42, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
2. Oppose (Ios2019 (talk) 11:19, 4 February 2019 (UTC)).
3. Oppose removal. It's the only example of neolithic/prehistoric architecture we have on the list. Unless we remove all of the individual structures, this should stay. Rreagan007 (talk) 02:58, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
4. Oppose Stonehage is the only article relatedd with prehistoric art on this level and Europe is better represented by countries than other continents. I can support swap Stonehage for pehistoric art and increasing number of countries, but I can not support swap Stonehage for Republic of Irleand because of it would not be reasonable for the diversity. Dawid2009 (talk) 22:07, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

Discuss

I suggest a more appropriate swap would be to add prehistoric art. Cobblet (talk) 16:42, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

Swap: Remove Joan of Arc, add Akbar

While Joan of Arc's military and cultural record is quite impressive, I don't think it is vital enough compared to the Mughal Emperor Akbar. Akbar is considered one of the greatest Indian emperors, enlarging the empire to cover most of the Indian subcontinent, tripling the size of the empire and establishing its superiority. The foundations of tolerance he constructed helped the multicultural empire unite and stay strong, and his reign helped establish the position of the Mughal Empire as one of the great Islamic empires of the time, along with the Ottomans and Safavid, and also ushered in the golden age in India that followed, exemplified by buildings like the Taj Mahal. —Spykryo (talk) 16:33, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

Support

1. Support nom.
2. Support removal --Thi (talk) 17:19, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
3. Support removal (Ios2019 (talk) 11:18, 4 February 2019 (UTC)).

Oppose

1. Oppose removal again; on a list that's meant to be diverse adding another male leader and removing a woman does not make sense. Also i'm not convinced Akbar is more vital then Ashoka or Saladin GuzzyG (talk) 03:21, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
2. Oppose removal. Agree with GuzzyG to a large extent. Ashoka edges out Akbar and arguably Gandhi too in vitality. As far as empires go, the Mughal and Gupta are greater than the Maurya but in terms of a single leader than will be remembered for a very long time, it is Ashoka. Saladin is also a good suggestion. Surely we could remove some of the writers first if we're tight on space. Gizza ^(t)(c) 08:03, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
3. Oppose We could use another political figure from South Asia and Akbar is a reasonable suggestion; but any addition should not come at the expense of one of only ten women on the list. If the list is to reflect the world's diversity, it surely cannot be too much to ask that women biographies comprise 1% of it. Cobblet (talk) 14:38, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
4. Oppose Another South Asian political figure is a good idea, but I don't think we should remove Joan of Arc, and I'd go with either Chandragupta Maurya or Ashoka before Akbar. Orser67 (talk) 17:52, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

Discuss

@DaGizza: What do you think about swapping Kahlil Gibran for Saladin? Gibran is the least vital person listed but he's on for diversity reasons;considering we removed Kurosawa i think Gibran's time is up. Saladin is more historically important to that region and he covers up a gap in the politics section, while Gibran is bloated in writers. Abu Nuwas and Rabindranath Tagore are more vital writers to history and will last longer from this region too, so i don't see a place for Gibran unless we go by bestselling. GuzzyG (talk) 06:41, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

@GuzzyG: yeah I think Gibran and Dostoevsky are the weakest writers on the list. Gibran for the reasons you stated. Dostoevsky because there is too much overlaps between him and Tolstoy. Same country and era. Not quite at Tolstoy's level. Similar to Victor Hugo, Dickens, Oscar Wilde and the Brothers Grimm I feel in being second or third to their respective countrymen. Gizza ^(t)(c) 12:55, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

remove Neptune, Uranus

Per below discussion, Neptune and Uranus potentially are not vital at this level. These two planets are the only planets in our solar system which have been discovered very much leter than Copernican Revolution and are long distance from Earth. When we are anthropocentric (for example we list Global warming ahead of Climate change or civilized continents ahead of Antarctica and Continent) we should not list Neptune and Uranus ahead of Equinox, Solstice, Eclipse, Astrology and History of astronomy. Also fact that we have already Planet and Solar system at this level makes Neptune and Uranus less vital than Mount Everest IMO. Pluto is not covered by Dwarf planet at this level. Dawid2009 (talk) 08:03, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

Support

1. As nom. Dawid2009 (talk) 08:03, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
2. Support --Thi (talk) 09:16, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
3. Support per nom and my previous comments above and in the archives. Gizza ^(t)(c) 12:25, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
4. Weak support as per my comment that raised this discussion: I weakly support removing Neptune and Uranus as they have little link to the Earth, and aren't as famous and vital as Jupiter, Saturn, and the large pieces of rocky road closer to the sun. I appreciate the nom's rationale, and my idea could be a small way to improve level-by-level stuff. J947 ^(c), at 04:31, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose (Ios2019 (talk) 15:07, 9 February 2019 (UTC)).
2. Oppose All eight (non-dwarf) planets are vital for both cultural and scientific reasons. Orser67 (talk) 22:35, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
3. Oppose The Solar System is our home. We should list all of the most significant objects in it. Uranus and Neptune certainly count as some of its most significant objects. I don't see how they're any less "famous" than the other planets – any schoolchild knows all of them. Cobblet (talk) 04:18, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Discuss

When we have Galaxy and Star already on the list I do not support addition of other Glaxies and Stars to this list but adding History of astronomy instead something like Greek Astronomy (which is less vital than Greek Mythology IMO) and adding Observation (not as astronomic article) or Light-year is reasnable for discussion. Some time ago there were failed nomination to swap Global warming for Climate change but I would support addition of Meteorology. Dawid2009 (talk) 08:03, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

We don't list the histories of any of the other pure sciences, and I'm not really convinced any of them are necessary. Cobblet (talk) 04:18, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

swap: remove Southern ocean, add Ocean

While Shoutern ocean is really very good described in English Wikipedia (better than other Oceans) and get quite a lot of pageviews here, it is has really very low popularity in forgein languaes and it is not even comparable to Arctic Ocean which is weakest other Ocean at this level. Southern Ocean is less popular than others because of a lot of people consider that exist 4 oceans in the World and Shoutern Ocean is only part of other Oceans. When we list article about Continent ahead of other specific articles such like Americas, Australia (continent), Polynesia, I think that we should replaced Shoutern Ocean with Ocean. Ocean is good addition to physical geography and this addition is possible when sea/land are level 2 and Plate tectonics is level 3. Oceans/seas historically are not infuencial for developing civilisation but his main role is significant for biosphere.Dawid2009 (talk) 08:03, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

Support

1. As nom. Dawid2009 (talk) 08:03, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
2. Weak support removal. wumbolo ^^^ 13:03, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
3. Support removal. The 4-ocean model is the most generally accepted, which views the Southern Ocean merely as parts of the other oceans. As for the general article on ocean, we already list sea as well as the individual oceans at this level. That should be sufficient. Rreagan007 (talk) 21:09, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
4. Support removal --Thi (talk) 00:06, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose The Southern Ocean is the linchpin of the World Ocean's thermohaline circulation, its biggest upwelling site, and one of the planet's most productive biomes as a result: for example, Antarctic krill is believed to be the world's most abundant animal species by biomass. It's also the world's largest remaining oceanic wilderness area, largest than the Eastern South Pacific or the Arctic. It is exactly the kind of topic Wikipedia needs to highlight, even if not everybody has heard of it. The only thing ocean covers that sea does not is the concept of an ocean on planets other than Earth; that is hardly significant enough (we don't even list exoplanet) to justify adding an otherwise completely redundant article to the list. Cobblet (talk) 04:48, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Discuss

BTW I have two questions... 1Do we need Arctica and Arctic Ocean? If we decide add North Pole in future one of them we cpould potentially remove. 2Why Amazon rainforest is at the level 3 but Tropical rainforests and Rainforests are not? If main vitality of Amason Rainforest is fact that it is influencial for life on our Planet, I would consider add Tropical rainforests ahead of Rainforests, not Amason Rainforest (destroying all Tropical Rainforest would be larger catastrophic than destroying Amason Rainforest itself). Dawid2009 (talk) 08:03, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

I think you mean Arctic, and I kind of agree with you that we don't need both it and Arctic Ocean, after all we don't list Antarctic at this level, and I don't think Arctic is any more vital. In regards to Rainforest and Tropical rainforest, we already list forest at this level, which covers the other two. Amazon Rainforest is listed because it is the most important forest on the planet by far. Rreagan007 (talk) 21:22, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

When we have Amazon rainforest I likely we should have equator. Equator it is so common concept that even Tropical rainforest climate is called in forgein languages as "Equator climate" (see Interwiki). Addition of equator, south pole, north pole and cartography is valuable for discussionalthough I am not sure we should have all of them Dawid2009 (talk) 22:38, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

The Equator is just a Circle of latitude. Latitude, Longitude, and Geographic coordinate system would all be more vital and none of them are listed at this level. Rreagan007 (talk) 22:50, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Cartography is not listed because map is listed. I think adding more biomes is a good idea (better than adding more countries, I think), and rainforests are sufficiently distinct from other types of forests to merit being listed separately. Cobblet (talk) 04:48, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Swap: remove Arctic, add Caribbean Sea

Adding Caribbean Sea is something that several people have brought up before, and I think it makes sense. I think it's at least as vital as Mediterranean Sea and Caspian Sea, which are listed. As far as Arctic, we don't list its Southern Hemisphere counterpart Antarctic at this level, and it doesn't seem any more vital to me. I think it was probably originally added to the list to balance out the continent of Antarctica, but we have the Arctic Ocean for that. Our planet just happens to have a continent at one pole and an ocean at the other, so those are the articles that we should be listing here. Rreagan007 (talk) 21:29, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Support

1. Support as nom. Rreagan007 (talk) 21:29, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
2. Support per nominator's reasoning. Orser67 (talk) 01:16, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
3. Strong support removal Just per Reagan's last sentence: Our planet just happens to have a continent at one pole and an ocean at the other, so those are the articles that we should be listing here.. Dawid2009 (talk) 17:52, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose --Thi (talk) 00:09, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
2. Oppose removal If we list 18 cities to cover the world's most densely inhabited areas, we can spare four articles to cover its largest areas of wilderness. (If places have to be inhabited to be vital, why did we so strongly oppose removing all the planets?) One article to cover each polar landmass and ocean makes sense to me. I have no issue with adding the Caribbean, but I don't think it's more vital than the terrestrial Arctic or the Southern Ocean. (It does bother me a little that the Caribbean does not include the Gulf of Mexico and almost nobody speaks of the American Mediterranean Sea.) Cobblet (talk) 05:03, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

   To be honest, I've never even heard of the term American Mediterranean Sea. As far as the Gulf not being technically part of the Caribbean, I would note that the Black Sea is also not considered part of the Mediterranean. Rreagan007 (talk) 17:34, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Discuss

I appreciate idea but I am not sure Caribbean Sea is better choice than Carribean when we have Grand Canyon/Rocky Mountains/Great Lakes ahead of California. The North America is the only contined which is better represented by physical geography than by political geography. We already list Lake Victoria and Great Lakes ahead of Tigris/Euphrates despite fact even very "non-civilisational rivers" are more influencial than lakes. Carribean also would be neutral choice for American Mediterraean Sea when we list specific countries at this list. Dawid2009 (talk) 17:52, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Listing Caribbean rather than Caribbean Sea would be like listing Mediterranean Basin rather than Mediterranean Sea. Rreagan007 (talk) 19:18, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Where Mediterranean Basin is equivalent to History of the Caribbean or West Indies? Dawid2009 (talk) 19:34, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

I'm not understanding your point. Rreagan007 (talk) 19:48, 13 February 2019 (UTC)